“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect in California, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.  The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

READ THE DECISION HERE: www.afer.org/legal-filings/ninth-circuit-decision-on-prop-8

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is the sole sponsor of the Perry case.

“Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, as the courts have repeatedly throughout our nation’s history, that singling out a class of citizens for discriminatory treatment is unfair, unlawful and violates basic American values,” said AFER Board President Chad Griffin.  ”Like many other Americans, our plaintiffs want nothing more than to marry the person they love.  Committed, loving couples and their families should not be denied this most fundamental freedom.”

The production is an unprecedented account of the Federal District Court trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case filed by AFER to overturn Prop. 8, which eliminated the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples in California .

Black, who penned the Academy-Award winning feature film “Milk,” based “8″ on the actual words of the trial transcripts, first-hand observations of the courtroom drama and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families. It is set to premiere at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre in New York City on Monday, September 19, 2011 for an exclusive, one night only fundraiser to benefit AFER.  High profile and award-winning actors will play the roles of the legal team, plaintiffs and witnesses for both sides of the historic Prop. 8 case.  Casting for the all-star benefit will be announced soon.

Following the New York debut on September 19, AFER and Broadway Impact will license “8″ to schools and community organizations nationwide in order to spur action, dialogue and understanding.  AFER and Broadway Impact will help produce these staged readings across the country, so that “8″ will live on beyond its September premiere.

“People need to witness what happened in the Prop. 8 trial, if for no other reason than to see inequality and discrimination unequivocally rejected in a court of law where truth and facts matter,” said Black. “I’ve built my career around exposing and uncovering ‘the real story’. The goal of ’8′ is to show the world that marriage equality is a basic constitutional right and that those who would deny this basic freedom from loving, committed couples have only vitriol and baseless hyperbole to fall back on. The facts are on our side and truth always finds the light. We at AFER are doing all we can to help speed that process along.”

The story for “8″ is framed by the trial’s historic closing arguments in June 2010, but features the best arguments and testimony from both sides of the issue. Scenes include flashbacks to some of the more jaw-dropping moments of trial, such as the admission by Prop. 8 supporters’ star witness David Blankenhorn that “we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.”

AFER prevailed at the federal district court and Prop. 8 was found unconstitutional on August 4, 2010.  It is currently being appealed by the anti-marriage Proponents.

The American public was not given a chance to witness the historic trial because the Proponents of Prop. 8 launched a desperate attempt to forever hide the trial videotapes. Although the trial proceedings were open to the public, and all courtroom testimony and events were well-documented, the trial video most vividly compares the weakness of the Proponents’ arguments to the well-reasoned, valid and constitutionally-based arguments and evidence put forth by AFER’s team.

The video of the trial has been kept under seal due to a federal protective order. AFER’s attorneys have filed a motion asking the court to make the full and unedited recordings available for all to see.

“Because this case involves the constitutional rights of millions of people, it is especially important for the public to see what happened during the trial,” said AFER Senior Project Director Adam Umhoefer. “Both sides had an equal opportunity and ample resources to assemble their strongest teams and put forth their absolute best arguments in a fair setting.  Viewed side-by-side there is simply no question that there was only one decision the court could have reached.  The moment we knew the trial would not be publicly broadcast we immediately began planning to find a way to show the world what happened in this historic case.  This play and our partnership with Broadway Impact allow us to do exactly that.”

“I was lucky enough to watch the initial closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in San Francisco,” says Broadway Impact co-founder Rory O’Malley (Tony nominee for The Book of Mormon). “We knew then and there that audiences needed to see and hear this story live, as we had done. ’8′ builds on a successful tradition of documentary theatre—plays like The Laramie Project and The Vagina Monologues, which inspire us with their combination of art and activism.  We are thrilled to partner with AFER to bring this story to a national audience.”

Tickets for the play will be in high demand and are expected to sell out.  The proceeds will go directly to the fight for full federal marriage equality and to support educational efforts on the freedom to marry nationwide.

Read Pat Healy’s New York Times EXCLUSIVE: http://nyti.ms/oGZBwf
For info on ticket sales, visit: www.afer.org/broadway8
For info on how your local theater can produce “8″, visit: www.BROADWAYIMPACT.com

According to the latest survey conducted by Harris Interactive, more than half (53%) of all U.S. adults agreed that regardless of their own personal views, “a same-sex marriage legally granted in one state should be recognized as a legal marriage in all other states in the same way generally that heterosexual marriages are recognized across state lines.” Just as significantly, 49% of all U.S. adults say they “support the right for same-sex couples to marry,” when contrasted with 41% who oppose the right, and 10% who are not at all sure.

The new nationwide online survey of 2,397 U.S. adults, (ages 18 and over), of whom 358 self identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT), was conducted between July 11 and July 18, 2011, by Harris Interactive, a global market research and consulting firm, in conjunction with Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc., a strategic public relations and marketing communications firm with special expertise on LGBT issues.

Given the nation’s changing attitudes towards marriages between same-sex partners, the study also questioned LGBT adults about their choices where to live and work – given the contrast between states that offer or deny equal marriage rights for same-sex partners today. [Note that these respondents were asked to assume they live currently in a state with equal marriage rights, in order to test their attitudes.] The study found:

• Four out of ten (46%) lesbian and gay adults say they would “consider changing jobs if my employer required me to transfer to a state where same sex marriages were not recognized.”
• 48% of all lesbian and gay adults also agreed they “would consider declining a job promotion if it required me to transfer to a state where same sex marriages were not recognized” and,
• Most significant of all, over 3/4 (78%) of lesbian and gay adults said that “other factors being equal, I would prefer a job with an employer in a state where same sex marriages are recognized over an employer in a state that does not recognize same sex marriages.

“According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, there now are between 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex couples in the U.S.,” noted Bob Witeck, CEO of Witeck-Combs Communications. “And with the historic new law in New York making marriage equality official this weekend; hundreds more will soon join them.”

“These strong trends are truly shaping America’s attitudes towards and understanding of same-sex couples and LGBT families in familiar and very reassuring ways. However, there also is an emerging economic and business impact here that begs attention – as many of these LGBT families act on their instincts to favor gay-welcoming states and employers found in progressive legal climates.”

The national survey also encouraged respondents to foresee new trends “if more states allow same-sex couples to marry equally as opposite-sex couples.” Here are snapshots of those outcomes that both LGBT and heterosexual adults believe are “likely [or unlikely] to happen:”

• Two-thirds or 65% of LGBT adults say “more gays and lesbians will move their families to states where marriage for same-sex couples is permitted.” Over half (52%) of heterosexual adults agree.
• Three-fourths (75%) of LGBT adults say “over time, same-sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the United States, and nearly half (46%) of all heterosexuals concur.
• Two-thirds (66%) of LGBT adults believe that “states that permit same-sex couples to marry will benefit economically more than other states, while over one-quarter (27%) of heterosexuals agree.
• And when asked whether a “Constitutional Amendment to limit marriages of same-sex couples or to prevent same-sex couples from marrying” will be passed, only 8% of heterosexuals agreed along with 12% of LGBT adults.

The circuitous route to legalizing gay marriage overcame another road block when Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling to overturn Proposition 8 should not be vacated on conflict of interest grounds.

ProjectMarriage.com had filed the challenge to Judge Walker’s ruling back in April claiming the Judge was partial in his decision because he himself was in a same sex relationship and stood to benefit from the legalization of gay marriage in California.

In his written decision Judge Ware stated “The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification.”

Judge Ware publicly acknowledged his 10 year relationship with another man following his retirement from the bench in February but the speculation that he was gay began years before the Proposition 8 appeal came before his court.

There have been numerous occasions where appeals have been filed to disqualify women judges from sexual harassment cases and minority judges from discrimination cases but this is the first attempt to vacate a decision based on a judge’s sexual orientation.

Judge Ware’s decision that no intrinsic bias existed simply because Judge Walker is a gay man advances the effort to repeal prop 8 to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where that court will consider the efficacy of Walker’s finding that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is a violation of their constitutional rights.

The 2 1/2-hour hearing before a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals aimed to address two issues: whether Proposition 8, enacted by 52 percent of voters in 2008, is constitutional and whether sponsors of the ballot measure – or a county clerk from Southern California – have a right to argue its merits in court.

While both sides have made their arguments, a decision is not expected for at least another three months, leaving those California couples who are awaiting their opportunity to legal marry to put their plans on hold yet again. Western School of Law Professor Barbara Cox said in August “I would say we’re are at least a year away,” says California Western School of Law Professor Barbara Cox. ”I would be very surprised if they…didn’t stay it again,”

Cox cautions those who want to ban gay marriage in California that legal challenges to the higher court could make it open to all the states in the 9th Circuit if that court makes a similar finding to the U.S. District Judge’s decision. Further legal challenges could expand gay marriage to even more of the country.

“By trying to prevent marriage in California, if it goes to the Supreme Court, they lose all the marriage bans that exist now. I think that is a big risk for them to take,” says Cox.

Cox says if the legal battle goes to the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages would likely be delayed at least three years if they were allowed at all.

ADL issued the following statement:

The segregated system of domestic partnership and marriage created by Proposition 8 unfairly forces gays and lesbians to disclose their sexual orientation in order to qualify for state benefits, thereby raising serious privacy concerns.

By compelling individuals to disclose this personal and private information the system created by Proposition 8 demeans the entire community’s dignity and, at a time when bullying, harassment and hate crimes are prevalent, may expose gay individuals to discriminatory treatment or worse by those who continue to harbor prejudices.

California’s ban on same-sex marriage is an affront to personal liberty and equal protection of law, and we urge the 9th Circuit to find it unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit will hear arguments in the case on December 6, 2010, in San Francisco.  The League’s brief was drafted by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – Redwood Shores, California office.  ADL has regional offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Diego and San Francisco.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to expedite the case, scheduling arguments on Dec. 6.    “We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case,” said lawyer Ted Boutros.    In the meantime those waiting to wed may have to wait for quite some time. San Diego 6 interviewed California Western School of Law Professor Barbara Cox who made the following statement:

“I would say we’re are at least a year away,” says California Western School of Law Professor Barbara Cox.  ”I would be very surprised if they…didn’t stay it again,”

Even though the district judge found no legal basis for banning gay marriage, Cox says he is certainly aware there is a good chance the 9th Circuit will hear the case. “Why let people start to marry now when they could have those marriages voided and we already went through that once with the San Francisco marriages.”

Cox cautions those who want to ban gay marriage in California that legal challenges to the higher court could make it open to all the states in the 9th Circuit if that court makes a similar finding to the U.S. District Judge’s decision. Further legal challenges could expand gay marriage to even more of the country.

“By trying to prevent marriage in California, if it goes to the Supreme Court, they lose all the marriage bans that exist now. I think that is a big risk for them to take,” says Cox.

Cox says if the legal battle goes to the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages would likely be delayed at least three years if they were allowed at all.

The Huffington Post Reported:

In his original ruling, Walker moved to suspend gay weddings until he could consider arguments from both sides on whether the marriages should be allowed during an appeal of his ruling. He now says gay marriage should resume, but he gave conservatives the extra time to get the appeals court to weigh in.

Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel for the Proposition 8 supporters, said his legal team intends to ask the appeals court to immediately impose a stay of Walker’s ruling, a move that would halt gay marriages while the case is pending before the 9th Circuit.

Here’s hoping we’ll here those wedding bells ring next week!

Representatives from the Human Rights Campaign, the Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club, First Congregational Church, Lambda Legal, Long Beach City Council, AMP Organization and the Center Long Beach all took to the stage to inform the crowd of what the Prop 8 ruling means and to remind everyone that the fight for equality is not over.

Council Member Robert Garcia reminded everyone that although this is a day to celebrate, we must not ever forget how we felt that day in November when when the LGBT community lost the vote on Prop 8.   He urged supporters not to become complacent just because Prop 8 has been overturned.    This sentiment has been echoed throughout the LGBT community, since an official stay has been issued pending appeal.

So while we await the next steps in this battle…we can still be thankful that we have made yet another leap in the right direction toward equality for all.

While reading all of the posts on Facebook and various news blogs about the Prop 8 Ruling, I came across this comment that I thought I would share:

“This is the first time I have ever cried about this entire mess. In 2 years of living it here in California.

I can finally just let go of all the anger and emotion I’ve held in my soul these last 2 years. Tears. Lots of tear. Thank god I have a private office.

I know this is just the beginning, but just to hear the word UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just to hear someone acknowledge my humanity, our humanity.

Lots and lots of tears.”

Below is a quick summary of the Conclusion as outlined at Prop8TrialTracker.com.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.  Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.  California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor  of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

More to come…..